No water, no trade with India: Khaleda

[PlanetSoldier]

If you want to see what general Bangladeshi people think about India, go to any Bangladeshi face book and read comments. I will not suggest any specific. Just find it by yourself.

The following one just for one example.

Log In | Facebook

And there is no third catalyst responsible for growing hatred towards them, it's india itself helping people of Bangladesh to be so.

 

[PlanetSoldier]

If you want to see what general Bangladeshi people think about India, go to any Bangladeshi face book and read comments. I will not suggest any specific. Just find it by yourself.

The following one just for one example.

Log In | Facebook

And there is no third catalyst responsible for growing hatred towards them, it's india itself.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

I am no supporter of BNP or Jamaat for their myriad mistakes and failures, but compared to BAL, they are 'saviours' of some sort for any Bangladeshi. Although it remains to be seen how much of the rhetoric in public addresses will be realized if/when BNP/allies come to power, most Bangladeshis (not including BAL and their fellow Hindutva radicals and agents) are opposed to the malicious fangs of Hindutva radicalism spreading across the Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh for good reason.

Maybe because she is a woman, or maybe because of other reasons, Khaleda Zia's plan to counter Hindutva terrorism under its various guises seems to be a very 'gentle' one. More 'hardline' approach should be adopted in order to face the ever growing threat from across the border that seeks to engulf Bangladesh into its borderline insane reign of Hindutva radicalism. Under no circumstances can Bangladeshis, by which I mean true Bangladeshis, accept the notion of peace or tolerance with a bunch of radicals unrelenting on their grandiose delusional dreams of "Akhand Bharat" - a radical, anachronistic Hindutva terrorist 'black hole' that seeks to throw Bangladesh back into the 4th century BC.

 

[M_Saint]

I am no supporter of BNP or Jamaat for their myriad mistakes and failures, but compared to BAL, they are 'saviours' of some sort for any Bangladeshi. Although it remains to be seen how much of the rhetoric in public addresses will be realized if/when BNP/allies come to power, most Bangladeshis (not including BAL and their fellow Hindutva radicals and agents) are opposed to the malicious fangs of Hindutva radicalism spreading across the Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh for good reason.

Maybe because she is a woman, or maybe because of other reasons, Khaleda Zia's plan to counter Hindutva terrorism under its various guises seems to be a very 'gentle' one. More 'hardline' approach should be adopted in order to face the ever growing threat from across the border that seeks to engulf Bangladesh into its borderline insane reign of Hindutva radicalism. Under no circumstances can Bangladeshis, by which I mean true Bangladeshis, accept the notion of peace or tolerance with a bunch of radicals unrelenting on their grandiose delusional dreams of "Akhand Bharat" - a radical, anachronistic Hindutva terrorist 'black hole' that seeks to throw Bangladesh back into the 4th century BC.

Hat's off to your quest on searching truth through right prism. The following are some hints for you to figure out BNP/JI's less venomousness in encountering Hindutavya walas....

1. BD being David and living in close proximity of cunning, expansionist Goliath of opposite camp.

2. Having wrong Nationalist/Ideological tag in wrong time, the impact of it has been further eroded
by creative Goliath's extra-ordinary dedication in leveraging its all organs.

3. Goliath's ability to team up with 'Giant king' and coarse it toward achieving 'Bigger Mula' but under the friendship/ally veneer to push own agenda.

4. Gigantic disproportion between Goliath and David as BD's ability to leverage nationalistic
muscles.

5. BD getting an orphanage's makeover even in own community through constant force and deception by Goliath-Giant King's nexus.

Hope the above will help you to analyze on why BNP/JI is handicapped as oppose to RAWamy venom, thanks.

 

[LaBong]

If Pranab Mukherjee was a [censored word] like Khaleda, he would have said - No trade, no water!

 

[Banglar Lathial]

Hat's off to your quest on searching truth through right prism. The following are some hints for you to figure out BNP/JI's less venomousness in encountering Hindutavya walas....

1. BD being David and living in close proximity of cunning, expansionist Goliath of opposite camp.

2. Having wrong Nationalist/Ideological tag in wrong time, the impact of it has been further eroded
by creative Goliath's extra-ordinary dedication in leveraging its all organs.

3. Goliath's ability to team up with 'Giant king' and coarse it toward achieving 'Bigger Mula' but under the friendship/ally veneer to push own agenda.

4. Gigantic disproportion between Goliath and David as BD's ability to leverage nationalistic
muscles.

5. BD getting an orphanage's makeover even in own community through constant force and deception by Goliath-Giant King's nexus.

Hope the above will help you to analyze on why BNP/JI is handicapped as oppose to RAWamy venom, thanks.

Thanks. I know what you mean. These are 'excuses' made by 'losers' because at the end of the day, what is at stake is Bangladesh's future in its entirety. There's no scope for excuses. Either Bangladesh counters the evil schemes of the Hindutva radicals and their backers from Neoconservative radical western camps who dreamt of creating a "New American Century" as envisioned in the Project for the New American Century, or Bangladesh gets swamped by the poisons of radical saffron brigade terrorism.

 

[LaBong]

Somebody remind that fat lady that India surrounds her country on all sides except a small opening in the South East which again is bordered by Mayanmar.

You mean occupied ChakmaDesh right?

 

[Zabaniyah]

You mean occupied ChakmaDesh right?

What is your problem with the Chakmas?

 

[mb444]

Somebody remind that fat lady that India surrounds her country on all sides except a small opening in the South East which again is bordered by Mayanmar.

I would propose a hypothesis that the Lady is aware of the reality on the ground that Bangladesh is a maritime nation and the Indians grasp on the seven sisters exist only on a point of a gun. Furthermore I would postulate that she sees a homogeneous nation of 150m with a history defending itself. She I suspect like any rational person concludes that there will not be a armed conflict between Bangladesh and India anytime soon. What we have here is a win win situation between Bangladesh and india where we can both economically benefit in a quid pro quo scenario. Indian policy makers are still in a cold war era mode as such they continue to solitarily patronise BAL. BNP and BAL in actuality do not have particularly different policies just rhetoric.

I find it perplexing that india with all its pretention of being a superpower lacks the foresight see that in Bangladesh it has an opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues amicably. Seeking to bully Bangladesh will not work and has not worked. Contrary to your belief we are not surrounded by you. We have the width of our country as a shoreline which serves as a conduit to the world.

Indian approach to bangladesh should be business minded and professional, they have hedged all on BAL to the detriment of both. To Bangladeshis such as I, BAL is compromising Bangladeshs sovereignty with their close association to India. India can bankroll BAL to one election win which was assisted by widespread anti-incumbency feeling and collusion of the Bangladeshi security services who were seeking to protect themselves from future prosecution. But this unique situation will not present itself next time.

BNP is the biggest party in Bangladesh and it has wide spread support. What the lady says India should heed and calibrate stance accordingly.

 

[Roybot]

No water and No trade for Bangladesh. Bangladesh buys from India because its the cheapest option available for them, you are not doing anyone a favour.

India needs water too. A reasonable treaty should be worked out, Bangladesh should stop demanding major chunk of the water. This rhetoric isn't really going to help because India is under no legal obligation to give all the water to Bangladesh.

Address Indian concern regarding security and infiltration in the N.E. India will address Bangladesh's water concern.

 

[Bhairava]

I would propose a hypothesis that the Lady is aware of the reality on the ground that Bangladesh is a maritime nation and the Indians grasp on the seven sisters exist only on a point of a gun. Furthermore I would postulate that she sees a homogeneous nation of 150m with a history defending itself. She I suspect like any rational person concludes that there will not be a armed conflict between Bangladesh and India anytime soon. What we have here is a win win situation between Bangladesh and india where we can both economically benefit in a quid pro quo scenario. Indian policy makers are still in a cold war era mode as such they continue to solitarily patronise BAL. BNP and BAL in actuality do not have particularly different policies just rhetoric.

I find it perplexing that india with all its pretention of being a superpower lacks the foresight see that in Bangladesh it has an opportunity to resolve the outstanding issues amicably. Seeking to bully Bangladesh will not work and has not worked. Contrary to your belief we are not surrounded by you. We have the width of our country as a shoreline which serves as a conduit to the world.

Indian approach to bangladesh should be business minded and professional, they have hedged all on BAL to the detriment of both. To Bangladeshis such as I, BAL is compromising Bangladeshs sovereignty with their close association to India. India can bankroll BAL to one election win which was assisted by widespread anti-incumbency feeling and collusion of the Bangladeshi security services who were seeking to protect themselves from future prosecution. But this unique situation will not present itself next time.

BNP is the biggest party in Bangladesh and it has wide spread support. What the lady says India should heed and calibrate stance accordingly.

Look mate no one in India sees Bangladesh as a threat and the vast majority still remember it as the nation that we helped liberate from Pakistan even though the illegal migrants coming into our country is a very big problem for us. Still BD is not considered as an enemy or even as a rival. We have bigger fish to fry. It would be good if every one in BD remembers that.

Coming to the lady's words, which sounded more like a threat to India, rather than a suggestion that trade depends on India giving water, BD is not doing India any favor by trading with us. India's trade with BD is very miniscule compared with its overall trade and GDP and if push comes to shove we can very well suspend the trade and we would not even notice the difference. Also India and BD don't share any legal treaty like the Indus Water treaty which makes India liable to give waters to BD. We can very well stop any water without any legal repurcussions. Yet, that is not what India does.

So I suggest she tone down the rhetoric (something like either with us or against us) and co-operate like a responsible neighbour for mutual benefit of the whole region.

Regarding BD being a maritime region it doesn't make a big difference. Bay of Bengal is our lake.

 

[jbond197]

Why is this water issue extending for so long? I mean why can not India BD sort it out in more mature manner.. Obviously, silly demands should not be entertained..

 

[mb444]

No water and No trade for Bangladesh. Bangladesh buys from India because its the cheapest option available for them, you are not doing anyone a favour.

India needs water too. A reasonable treaty should be worked out, Bangladesh should stop demanding major chunk of the water. This rhetoric isn't really going to help because India is under no legal obligation to give all the water to Bangladesh.

Address Indian concern regarding security and infiltration in the N.E. India will address Bangladesh's water concern.

Bangladesh has demanded water on the basis of international law as the lower riparian country. It is extremely disingenuous for you to say that India has no legal obligation.

India is bound by international laws it should act in accordance with it. Just because you are bigger does not mean you can bully.

Bangladesh seeks its equitable share of water, it has never claimed all of it or majority of it. Indian plans to divert rivers will have massive impact on Bangladesh and it is simply illegal in law for an upper riparian country to unilaterally remove or divert water.

I would suggest India does not set this precedence because it will not be good for either country. Both of us face possible Chinese action of unilaterally removing water from rivers that becomes the Bharamaputra.

International mechanism exists to deal with ratios of water that countries can rightfully claim etc. This should be followed through and India is impeding this.

I just don’t see the Indian game, what possible reason is there to continue to foster antagonism with a neighbour when resolution of these issues means a boon for both countries.

In terms of your point about the seven sisters, Bangladesh cannot address this issue. You invaded these states in 1947, the people in these states do not consider themselves indian and do not have any cultural religious similarities with the rest of india. I do not know what we can possibly do. The ULFA presence in the Bangladesh border areas are minor at best and you know it. You have fenced the border.

I do not wish Bangladesh to serve as a launching pad for any instability to our neighbours but the genesis and the solution to the separatist problem lies with you. Leave these states who have nothing to do with india historically or assimilate them in a way that meets these nations needs.

The NE is not a point of contention between us. We would like the sisters stable so we can do business.

 

[mb444]

Look mate no one in India sees Bangladesh as a threat and the vast majority still remember it as the nation that we helped liberate from Pakistan even though the illegal migrants coming into our country is a very big problem for us. Still BD is not considered as an enemy or even as a rival. We have bigger fish to fry. It would be good if every one in BD remembers that.

Coming to the lady's words, which sounded more like a threat to India, rather than a suggestion that trade depends on India giving water, BD is not doing India any favor by trading with us. India's trade with BD is very miniscule compared with its overall trade and GDP and if push comes to shove we can very well suspend the trade and we would not even notice the difference. Also India and BD don't share any legal treaty like the Indus Water treaty which makes India liable to give waters to BD. We can very well stop any water without any legal repurcussions. Yet, that is not what India does.

So I suggest she tone down the rhetoric (something like either with us or against us) and co-operate like a responsible neighbour for mutual benefit of the whole region.

Regarding BD being a maritime region it doesn't make a big difference. Bay of Bengal is our lake.

I have already commented regarding the international legal framework surrounding water from common rivers. Treaties like Indus are based on those principals. I wont bother rehashing other than to say India does have legal obligations.

In terms of your perception of threat then yes in some ways it is. It is an economic threat in terms of future deeper integration. Despite what you believe Bangladesh economy is not dependent on you in any way. Our biggest trading partner in terms of where we sell our goods to is the EU and the US & Canada, then Middle east, then africa and the far east and then India. We buy more from you than you buy from us, so you have no leverage.

Rather than getting into jingoistic argument about bay of bengal being your lake as if you have either the capacity, the will, or the right to somehow blockade international water and thereby cut us off from the rest of the world listen to what is being stated by the lady.

You need to do so through the prism of Bangladesh politics.

Bangladesh is a sovereign country, India’s leverage vis a vis BAL is one dimensional. If india wants a productive relationship it must calibrate its stance, BNP will not be as subservient as BAL . If it chooses otherwise Bangladesh steered by BNP will exercise non Indian options.

This is primarily a dig at BAL, and a credible warning to india that by being too close to one political party it is forcing an opposing reaction from BNP.

For my two cents the europeans, americans and the chinese are laughing their heads off at us. By that I mean Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. We are spending so much time and effort fighting one another that we are ignoring development of our nations. Short sightedness all around.

 

[Roybot]

Bangladesh has demanded water on the basis of international law as the lower riparian country. It is extremely disingenuous for you to say that India has no legal obligation.

India is bound by international laws it should act in accordance with it. Just because you are bigger does not mean you can bully.

Once again there is no legal obligation. Even the UN can't and doesn't enforce trans boundary water sharing. Thats why countries sign bilateral water sharing treaties and appoint international bodies like World Bank or International court of arbitration to mediate and enforce the treaty , similar to Indo-Pak Indus water treaty.

Think about it, if there was really any legal obligation, Bangladesh would have taken India to the court by now, instead of merely complaining about it.

A sound legal framework is essential for stable and reliable cooperation. At the global level, the 1997 Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses represents an important step forward. The Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and provides a legal framework for inter-State cooperation on international watercourses. Although it is not yet in force, this Convention’s core principles, – e.g. equitable and reasonable utilization and the no-harm rule – are already part of international customary law

http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_TRANSBOUNDARY.pdf

Bangladesh seeks its equitable share of water, it has never claimed all of it or majority of it. Indian plans to divert rivers will have massive impact on Bangladesh and it is simply illegal in law for an upper riparian country to unilaterally remove or divert water.

Don't get me wrong, Bangladesh should most certainly get its equitable share of water, but equitable is a very vague term, who defines whats equitable? Which is why I said that these rhetoric aren't really going to help. Both the countries need to sit and chalk out the details. If Bangladesh addresses Indian concerns then Indian might agree to a "equitable" share which would be in favour of Bangladesh. Otherwise there is no point doing favours for a country which is hostile towards us.

I agree its not ethical to use water as a leverage but the past anti Indian actions of BNP led governments hasn't really left us with much choice.

I do not wish Bangladesh to serve as a launching pad for any instability to our neighbours but the genesis and the solution to the separatist problem lies with you. Leave these states who have nothing to do with india historically or assimilate them in a way that meets these nations needs.

The NE is not a point of contention between us. We would like the sisters stable so we can do business.

Easier said than done. I don't see any similarities between Bangladeshis and Chakmas, why doesn't Bangladesh let CHT go? Sub continent is very diverse, if every tribe, ethnicity and religious groups start demanding their own countries we ll have hundreds of countries, literally.

We are not expecting Bangladesh to fight the insurgency for us, but at least don't harbour our terrorists.